5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Baku.
6.  The applicant stood for the elections to the Milli Majlis (Parliament) of 6 November 2005 as a candidate of the opposition bloc Azadliq, a coalition formed for electoral purposes by the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan, with which the applicant was affiliated, together with a number of other opposition parties. He was registered as a candidate by the Constituency Electoral Commission (“the ConEC”) for the single-mandate Barda City Electoral Constituency no. 93.
7.  The constituency was divided into forty-two electoral precincts, with one polling station in each precinct. There were a total of eighteen candidates running for election in this constituency. The applicant was the only candidate nominated by Azadliq in that constituency.
8.  According to the ConEC protocol drawn up after election day, one of the applicant's opponents, Z.O., a member of the Motherland Party, obtained the highest number of votes cast in the constituency. Specifically, according to the ConEC protocol, Z.O. received 5,816 votes (41.25%), the applicant received 2,001 votes (14.19%), and a third candidate received 1,821 votes (12.92%). The total number of votes cast for each of the remaining candidates was substantially lower.
9.  On 7 and 8 November 2005 the applicant submitted identical complaints to the ConEC and the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”), in which he claimed, inter alia, that:
(i)  the local executive and municipal authorities, as well as heads of state‑funded institutions and organisations, interfered in the election process in favour of Z.O. prior to and during election day (in the form of openly campaigning in his favour and coercing voters to vote for him);
(ii)  Z.O.'s supporters (mostly State officials of various sorts) intimidated voters and otherwise attempted to influence voter choice in polling stations;
(iii)  in several polling stations, observers were harassed or excluded from the voting area by the police;
(iv)  some citizens residing in relevant election precincts were unable to exercise their right to vote due to the authorities' failure to include them in relevant voters lists; and
(v)  there were instances of multiple voting and ballot-box stuffing in different polling stations.
10.  In support of his claims, the applicant submitted to the CEC originals of more than 30 affidavits (akt) of election observers, audio tapes and other evidence documenting specific instances of irregularities complained of. Some examples of the evidence presented are summarised below.
11.  The ten-minute audio recording contained interviews with a number of unidentified voters, who stated, inter alia, that prior to election day directors of governmental institutions and public organisations (such as public schools and libraries) located on the territory of the constituency had held staff meetings with the specific purpose of instructing their staff to vote for Z.O., threatening them with salary cuts if Z.O. did not win the election.
12.  In an affidavit signed by them, seven observers in Polling Station no. 1 stated, inter alia, that twenty-five voters had voted twice, however the chairman of the Precinct Electoral Commission (“the PEC”) for this polling station had taken no action when this matter was brought to his attention.
13.  Seven observers in Polling Station no. 11 noted, inter alia, that the director of a public school where the polling station was located had openly intervened in the election process and interfered with the functions of the PEC without any objection by PEC members. Also, the same school director instructed a police officer to forcibly exclude one of the observers from the polling station.
14.  Three observers in Polling Station no. 14 noted, inter alia, that a certain named State official had actively interfered in the election process by openly campaigning in favour of Z.O. on the premises of the polling station, asked voters to vote for him and brought groups of unregistered voters to the polling station to vote for Z.O.
15.  Eight observers in Polling Station no. 16 witnessed one incident of ballot-box stuffing by a PEC member.
16.  An affidavit signed by six observers and candidates' representatives in Polling Station no. 31 stated that, at 7 p.m., when the vote-counting began, all of the observers had been forced out of the polling station premises by the police on the instruction of the PEC chairman. In the absence of the observers, a few hundred false ballots were illegally added into Z.O.'s total vote count in the polling station. According to a separate affidavit signed by observers from the same polling station, the PEC chairman and representatives of the executive and municipal authorities interfered in the election process and instructed voters to vote for Z.O. According to another affidavit, there were also several irregularities in the voter lists in this polling station.
17.  Three observers in Polling Station no. 41 noted, inter alia, that commission members had illegally added several additional ballots during the vote-counting.
18.  In their affidavits, observers from Polling Stations nos. 7, 12, 13, 15, 29, 30 and 37 documented similar incidents of alleged illegal campaigning in favour of Z.O., ballot-box stuffing and other forms of tampering with ballots, and irregularities with voter lists. A number of observers also noted that voting booths in some polling stations were of inadequate standard.
19.  According to the applicant, neither the ConEC nor the CEC replied to his complaints.
20.  According to the Government, the applicant's complaint was examined by the ConEC. As it appears from the documents submitted by the Government, following receipt of the applicant's complaint, the ConEC demanded explanations from the chairmen and members of the relevant PECs in connection with the applicant's allegations. In reply, about twenty PEC chairmen and members submitted brief handwritten statements (some of them as short as one or two sentences), or “explanatory notes” (“izahat”), all signed on 21 November 2005. All these notes stated in general terms that the election process in their respective polling stations had gone smoothly and without any irregularities, undue pressure on voters or any other breaches of the electoral law, and that any allegations by the applicant to the contrary were false.
21.  On 23 November 2005 the ConEC rejected the applicant's complaint. Without any elaboration on details of the applicant's specific allegations, it decided that they were unsubstantiated. At the same time, however, the ConEC confirmed that the condition of the voting booths in Polling Station no. 37 and “some other” (unidentified) polling stations had been poor. This finding did not entail any consequences for the official election results in those polling stations or in the constituency as a whole.
22.  On the same day, 23 November 2005, the CEC issued its final protocol approving the overall election results in the country (with the exception of a few electoral constituencies) and submitted it, together with relevant documents, to the Constitutional Court for review and approval of the election results. The election results for Barda City Electoral Constituency no. 93 were among those approved by the CEC, confirming Z.O. as the winner in this constituency.
23.  According to the country-wide results, the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan Party again won the majority of seats in the Milli Majlis.
24.  On 25 November 2005 the applicant lodged an action with the Court of Appeal, asking the court to invalidate the CEC's final protocol in the part relating to the election results in Barda City Electoral Constituency no. 93. In addition to restating all of his complaints made previously to the electoral commissions, he also complained of specific instances of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the PEC protocols which served as a basis for compiling the election results in the constituency as a whole. In particular, he noted a significant discrepancy in the PEC protocol for Polling Station no. 11, in which certain numbers did not add up correctly. As a result, more than 700 blank ballots out of more than 1,000 blank ballots originally issued to the PEC appeared to be “missing” (the protocol indicated that 313 persons had voted in that polling station, but only eleven of the remaining blank ballots were indicated as “unused” and formally “cancelled”, with no explanation as to what happened to the remaining more than 700 blank ballots). The same was the case with the PEC protocol for Polling Station no. 13, where more than 600 blank ballots were unaccounted for. Similar discrepancies were also allegedly found in PEC protocols for five other polling stations. The applicant claimed that these “missing” blank ballots had been sneaked out and illegally used for ballot-box stuffing in favour of Z.O. in various other polling stations.
25.  The applicant argued that, due to all these irregularities, it was not possible to determine the true opinion of the voters in his constituency. He also complained that the CEC had failed to examine his complaint of 7 November 2005. In support of his claims, the applicant submitted copies of the same evidence previously submitted to the CEC, including photocopies of the observers' affidavits and copies of audio material.
26.  On 28 November 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's claims as unsubstantiated. The court did not consider the photocopies of the affidavits as admissible evidence, noting that in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”) either the originals or notarised copies of those affidavits should have been submitted. Specifically, most of the reasoning contained in the Court of Appeal's judgment was limited to the following:
“According to Article 14.2 of the CCP ..., the court shall examine and rely on only the evidence submitted by the parties.
According to Article 77.1 of the same Code, each party must prove any allegations which it makes in support of its claims and objections.
Based on the material in the case file and the parties' submissions, [the applicant's] claim against [the CEC] ... cannot be upheld. The alleged incidents concerning Barda City Electoral Constituency no. 93, as described in the claim, did not take place. Documents attached to the claim are photocopies and no originals or notarised copies of documents have been submitted. [As such,] affidavits attached to the claim cannot be admitted as evidence. On the other hand, the alleged omission of a significant number of voters from voting lists has not been proved by the material in the case file.
In such circumstances, the court considers that [the applicant's] claim against [the CEC] ... must be dismissed.”
27.  On 30 November 2005 the applicant lodged a further appeal with the Supreme Court, reiterating his claims. He also noted that he had submitted the originals of the documentary evidence to the CEC on 7 November 2005 and argued that the Court of Appeal had failed to take this fact into account.
28.  On 1 December 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on the same grounds as the Court of Appeal's judgment of 28 November 2005. As to the originals of the documentary evidence allegedly submitted to the CEC, the Supreme Court noted that the applicant had failed to submit any evidence proving that he had ever applied to the CEC with a complaint. The reasoning in the Supreme Court's decision was as follows:
“According to Article 77.1 of the CCP ..., each party must prove any allegations which it makes in support of its claims and objections.
[The applicant] has not presented any convincing evidence capable of proving the allegations forming the basis of his claim. The photocopies of affidavits attached to his claim were not admitted as convincing evidence by the Court of Appeal in a lawful and justified manner, as they had not been notarised.
Moreover, the case materials contain no documents confirming that the applicant had applied to the electoral commissions under the procedure specified in Article 112 of the Electoral Code.
Although at the oral hearing the applicant claimed that he had submitted the originals of the affidavits to the CEC, he has not submitted to the court any evidence showing that he had [actually] applied to the CEC.
However, according to Articles 89 and 90 of the CCP ..., originals or duly certified copies of evidence should be submitted to courts. The applicant has not complied with this rule.
According to Article 416 of the CCP ..., the court of cassation instance verifies whether the court of appellate instance has correctly applied substantive and procedural law.
The court considers that the Court of Appeal has correctly applied the relevant law and correctly reached the conclusion that the claim was unsubstantiated. There is no ground for quashing the [Court of Appeal's] judgment.”
29.  On the same day, 1 December 2005, the Constitutional Court confirmed the election results in the majority of the electoral constituencies, including Barda City Electoral Constituency no. 93.